Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID

David H. Lynch Jr. writes:

> Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>
> > Ummm, MSFT can certainly sue for an injunction prohibiting the F/OSS 
> > developer from using patented IP without a license.
>     You can not get a broad "nobody can infringe on my patent anywhere" 
> injucntion.
That's why I used the word "the", above.

>              M$ would have to institute proceedings against each 
> individial infringer.
There are not that many F/OSS MTA developers.  An individual injunction for 
each one of them is quite feasible.  Game over.
>     I beleive preliminary injunctions are granted based on the 
> likelyhood of M$ to prevail, the patent will be presumed valid, But if 
> there are substantial questions regarding
> whether there is actual infringement an injuction will not likely be 
> granted.
If the F/OSS developer implements Sender-ID without registering with 
Microsoft, and without giving Microsoft a reciprocal patent license (as I 
believe Microsoft's current licensing terms mandate) proving an infringement 
won't be that difficult.
>          They are also granted based on the potential harm to the patent 
> holder. Since all Microsoft is asking for
>  a license is registration, the damages that an injunction would prevent 
> probably are not significant enough to warant one.
You are thinking about monetary damages.  The purpose of getting this 
injunction is not to win some cash.  If Sender-ID becomes widespread, and 
becomes a necessary component of a secure, well-executed E-mail 
infrastructure, there will be a clear benefit to legally barring F/OSS from 
competing with Microsoft's commercial offerings.
> > Since, as you've acknowledged, the F/OSS developer is not likely to 
> > have the financial resources for a protracted fight, and challenging 
> > the patent, Microsoft's legal expenses will be rather minimal.
> > Do you think that there would be any value for Microsoft in blocking a 
> > competing F/OSS implementation of Sender-ID?
>
>     M$ can not afford a fight either. They may have plenty of money, but 
> they are significantly short on good will. The DOJ may have wimped out 
> for the moment, but they are still watching things. Ashcroft is not
> a Freind of Bill, the Democrats if elected are even less so. The EU is 
> still proceeding, and world markets are enormously Microsoft unfriendly.
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_archives.php?id=131

The real figure may not be $200 million; but I don't think that's the major 
point.
I don't see the DOJ, or the EU, doing anything about it.

>     M$ will benefit enormously by playing a key role in this standard. 
Yes.  Locking out F/OSS carries quite a bit of benefit.

> Everyone will suffer if they do not.
I don't think so.  With a little work even today you can achieve an 
acceptable junk mail filtering ratio.  The world will not come to an end if 
Sender-ID does not get promoted.
>     Conversly, they will suffer if they are perceived as an impediment 
> to the solution to this problem. M$ has an enormous PR problem. I can 
> not think of a major company that is perceived of so poorly.
Completely irrelevant.  Microsoft's reputation was not a factor in reaching 
my decision.
>     Linux corporate sponsors. F/OSS has gottent large enough and 
> cohesive enough to fend for itself.
Right, and that's why we don't need to hop aboard a patent-encumbered train.

>                                     While there might be some F/OSS 
> legal resources available, the research resources would be enormous.
>     Again witness the SCO vs. IBM dispute. Research is the bane of any 
> IP claim. Prior art is somewhat difficult and often expensive for a 
> small business to prove, But the F/OSS community can probably provide 
> Published prior art
> for just about any software concept.
Probably true, but why should I even want to deal with this, when it is much 
easier to avoid the whole mess in the first place?
>     If you wish to attribute evil intentions to Microsoft here, the only 
> scenario I see where they win is one where they get to claim to have 
> contributed to a standard, while F/OSS developers self regulate and 
> refuse to
I assure you that I haven't spent even a single second musing whether 
Microsoft's intentions are "evil", or not.  It is certainly in their best 
interests to stamp out competition; this is true of any business.  Here, 
their competition is F/OSS, as they clearly spell out in their 10Q:
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5347325.html

This is purely business sense, not some metaphysical manifestation of 
"evil".
>     impliment it because of Microsoft's License. IP rights and patent 
> law are just tools. The real battleground is one of perception. 
Earlier you've claimed that their rep is poor.  Looking at their balance 
sheet, I doubt that their perception has any impact on the bottom line.
> Microsoft is not below sabotaging F/OSS, but is unlikely to want a 
> direct public confrontation.
>     Microsoft is pretty bad at PR, but they are pretty good at finding 
> the weaknesses of their competition and trying to exploit them.
Right, and the IP situation in the US is an acknowledged weakness for F/OSS.

>        F/OSS developers and distributors are not going to support a 
> standard that requires sending a signed license to Microsoft. Getting 
> that scenario is a WIN for Microsoft. Microsoft gets to claim a 
> standards compliant solution and all the F/OSS players leave the feild 
> to commercial developers.
That's OK.  There's not a lot of Netcraft-style breakdown for E-mail server 
software; but from the data that I've seen commercial E-mail server 
software's share is not that great.  Microsoft's dominance in E-mail client 
field is not going to help in the context of Sender-ID, which requires 
server support.
>                           If some F/OSS developer does move forward 
> without licensing Sender-ID from Microsoft,  M$ starts a PR campaign 
> about the lack of respect F/OSS has for IP and how they are all just a 
> bunch of untrustworthy hackers anyway.
I am confident that this scenario will not happen, no matter what the IETF 
decides.  Surveying the list archive, I see no evidence suggesting that any 
F/OSS developer has such plans.
>     The losing scenario for Microsoft is the perception that M$ 
> splintered MARID. Leaving us all with either weaker or not broadly 
> implimented solutions to this problem.
I do not agree.

>     Regardless, our responsibility has little to do with Microsoft. It 
> is to get the best standard with the broadest possible implimentation. 
This really depends on what definition of "best standard" one chooses.  
There is no standard definition for that.  My definition pretty much 
excludes patent-encumbered technologies (with few exceptions).
> If we reject Sender-ID we may loose Microsoft which would be bad. If we 
> do not
>     we lose F/OSS which would be worse.
I'm not sure what "lose F/OSS" means.  Certainly F/OSS will not go along 
with Sender-ID; this, I think, does not need to be debated any further. It's 
a foregone conclusion.  F/OSS will simply use an alternative.  It looks like 
the consensus is that F/OSS will proceed with SPF classic.
Do you know what that means?

It means that most organizations will choose to publish only SPF records.  
Some may choose to also publish Sender-ID records; I don't think that 
there's going to be anyone who'll publish only Sender-ID records.
This is because publishing SPF records is the only way to guarantee the most 
widespread coverage.  Everyone will support checking SPF records, and if you 
want to use MARID to prevent your mail domain from being forged, you want as 
much coverage as you can possibly get.

pgpioVi1GMy9l.pgp
Description: PGP signature